Just (another) game idea

[failrate]

Actually, I was telling you that there aren't any rules in the draft I read that actually addressed the effects of rolling really well or really badly.  At least not as far as I could tell.

[jphannil]

failrate: yes, because, uhm. they don't yet exist :)

Except in extended contest where the loser loses AP:s equal to the success of the winner, so if you fail miserably you could end the extended contest in one roll.

The actual effect of losing more or gaining more in normal rolls are ruled by the gm.

If disabilities occur because of a failed roll, the amount of the disability is usually the degree of failure (see the disabilities example of John falling when he is climbing the fence).

Speaking of the AP:s, I have a new version online (same address, just reload). New stuff:

1) AP:s in extended contest
2) Flow examples of extended contests, I mean they are not a rigid mechanic
3) Trait affinity (i.e. multiple traits could be used in a roll)

Best regards

[jphannil]

So, Mike, does it look too HeroQuestian (the AP's and stuff) ?

Others ?

Best Regards

[Mike Holmes]

Too Hero Questian? Not at all. In fact your system has a lot of dissimmilarities. In many ways your method is closer to D&D Hit Points (as they're explained, not as the mechanics seem to indicate). Again, I only pointed HQ out in case you weren't aware of the similarities, and so you could check it our for ideas.

For example, do you intend to have a rule for "Final Actions"? Could work well with your system. Also, is there an effect to how far below zero the losing actor is driven?

Mike

[jphannil]

Hmm, D&D hit points are only for fighting yes? AP's can be used anywhere, but I agree that they do reflect somehow.

Final actions? Meaning that the winner of the contest can do some action he wishes (when the other side hits 0 AP).

I don't know if negative AP count for anything, since the amount of AP's given and the flow of the contest (quick or slow) nail the situation quite nicely. If you have some good suggestions though, I am glad to hear them :) (in normal contest rolls the difference counts (gm rules them), and in extended it also counts, you lose more AP's).

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm, D&D hit points are only for fighting yes? AP's can be used anywhere, but I agree that they do reflect somehow.

I refer specifically to the mechanical similarities ("damage" is based on how well you roll, instead of bids, etc), and to the level of abstraction. It's odd that D&D was the first system to say that rounds of action were long - one minute originally - and that the "damage" that was accruing was actually not necceessarily physical wounds, but an abstraction of position in the fight and the like. Games sure took the long way around to figure out how to do that right with designs like Hero Quest, didn't they? ;-)

Final actions? Meaning that the winner of the contest can do some action he wishes (when the other side hits 0 AP).

No, that's "parting shots" or something like that. Final Actions allow a character to attempt one final comeback at 0 AP at the risk of worsening their defeat.

I don't know if negative AP count for anything, since the amount of AP's given and the flow of the contest (quick or slow) nail the situation quite nicely. If you have some good suggestions though, I am glad to hear them :) (in normal contest rolls the difference counts (gm rules them), and in extended it also counts, you lose more AP's).

The obvious choice would be to use the Disabilty rule. That is, the negative AP represents the Disability delivered. That would make parting shots and last actions and rules of that nature very interesting additions.

Mike

[jphannil]

Interesting suggestion Mike, and very intuitive.

At 0 AP, character can still perform an action against the opponent of the contest, but if he loses, he gains the amount of his lose in disability of some appropriate nature. That disability also affects the trait used in this contest. The disabled character can even try once more, however losing means more disability piles up.

In fighting for example, after AP 0 character gains physical damage until damage is at level 15 and character dies. In debate or something like that the disability could be something else: morale loss, bad rep or something appropriate.

This would make extended contests very long, so this should be restricted to the most dramatic cases, for example non-important npc:s could drop in a fight at 0 AP while big boss could try to do something even after 0 AP. I would call this .... dramatic extended contest :)

What do you think ?

Best regards

[jphannil]

Another idea came to mind, 0 AP would still be 0 AP, if reached, the contest is over, permanently. The thing is, tough guys and heroes could get AP with gaining equal disability.

Say a viking berserk warrior has 10 AP's and he is dropped to 5 AP's, the berserker's player decides that it's taken as wounds and he still has 10 AP's, but now he has 5 levels of wounded that affects fighting and such.

The nature of the drawback varies and gm can rule if something is appropriate or not.

How does that sound ?

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Might work. It's certainly self-limiting, if you assume that the disability taken has to apply to the conflict at hand. There might be some issues with the order of narration on this, OTOH. Play out a sample, and you'll see what I mean. I think that a lot of these issues are definitely at the playtest stage.

Mike

[jphannil]

Hi again !

Of the playtest issue, I haven't got a regular group as my old gaming group has spread all around in their lives. I've been thinking of starting an irc-based playtesting but I have problems with my network at home that must be clarified first.

Back to the point, Mike, what do you mean by order of narration ? I've thought that the point when player loses AP would be the spot for him to decide, either AP loss or disability.

For example John is in a fight with a cultist and loses a round of action by degree of 5, this indicating he is going to lose a 5 AP. John's player could decide he takes 5 point worth of physical damage disability instead of losing 5 AP's, but he could not decide to take 3 points of damage and 2 points of AP loss. This would clarify this rule a bit and avoids micro-tinkering, why micro-tinker if the game system is as broad as C&O is.

I've been thinking of dividing traits to 3 different 'breadth' levels, 1 = profession or wide, 2 = selection of few skills and abilities and 3 = hobby or a single skill. These would then correlate somehow in the experience system (professions and broad things are harder to raise through experience). In point based character creation, these would also be more expensive.

How does that sound?

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Given the example, it sounds fine to me. Have you considered making it the player's job to describe what a result the causes a Disability looks like? That is, not only does he choose the Disability, but he gets to narrate what getting it looks like. Just a thought.

I've been thinking of dividing traits to 3 different 'breadth' levels, 1 = profession or wide, 2 = selection of few skills and abilities and 3 = hobby or a single skill. These would then correlate somehow in the experience system (professions and broad things are harder to raise through experience). In point based character creation, these would also be more expensive.

Danger! If you do something like this, be careful how you handle "defaults". If you allow narrow things to default to wider things then you can have a currency problem. For details, see: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2051

If you don't allow defaulting, then other problems can occur. Get that playtesting going!

Mike

[jphannil]

Jep, I'm familiar with the gurps problem, I actually dislike the system just because of that.

If you remember I have only traits which are not defaulting to each other in any way. I don't have the stat/skill differentiation, but if I had, it's difficult not to fall to the 'gurps problem'. What are the drawbacks of not having a stat/skill system, especially so because so many games are stat/skill -based nowadays ?

Of the drawback issue, I have to think about that, I've given quite much player control allready with the ability to choose a luck die.

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

It's a matter of defaulting, not stat/skill per se.

Consider, one player has Warrior skill with a few levels, and another has Sword skill. They're both trying to hack at something with swords. Does the warrior get to use his Warrior skill? Now, lets say that the Warrior character picks up sword skill to one less level than warrior? Now how good is he?

Mike

[jphannil]

For current rules, this would fall under the trait affinity rules.

Say the guy with warrior-trait of +2 and a sword trait of +0 is hacking with an axe, his warrior trait would come into play, so he would have +2. If the same guy picks up a sword and uses it the trait affinity gives him the trait of +3 (the best trait used, and +1 for every other trait that's value is at least the highest trait -5).

Can you see a problem with this, related to the trait breadth rule (or otherwise) ? If so I am very eager to hear it and suggested corrections.

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I just reread that part about affinities. There are some potential problems there. For one, what's to stop a player from listing a hundred +0 Affinities? Using the point based method, that's free. I assume that if the trait isn't listed that it can't be used? Or are default +0 traits usable as well. Because if either of these things is true, players will always be able to find four traits to augment with.

Interestingly, that assumes that the highest Trait isn't greater than 5 (or the +0s can't be used at all). Which gives you a strong reason to cap off abilities at that level if, again, you can have all the +0 affinity traits you want.

Anyhow, a similar problem to my original problem still persists. Let's say that I've got a character who has Warrior +2, and Sword +2. Can you think of a time when Sword will be applicable, but Warrior won't? There might be cases, but I think it'll be very rare. Basically Sword "defaults" to Warrior in this case. What this means is that the additional points of Sword are, well, pointless. I can always use Warrior as the pertinent skill in the example, and either way I only get +3, the same as if I only had Sword +0.

As long as there's a skill that defaults to another, that is, skills that always can be used with others, you'll need to have more of the "sub-skill" than the default skill in order to make any difference.

In any case, the value of Warrior, even if we say that there are sub-skills that can't use it as the primary Trait for a roll, is equal to it's own value as an Ability, which is already wide, plus the value of one level of every skill that it can be an afinity for. So, lesse, for Warrior I think that I can come up with about 20 or so skills that it covers at least. Which means that Broad skills should cost about 25 times as much as narrrow skills. Which means that, either they won't get purchased at all if that's too much of the character's points, or that's all that will get purchased if they're cheap.

It's the same problem as in the Rant. The player will have a winning strategy based on how many of his Traits they see as defaulting to the broader traits and depending on cost. Which means that you won't get a distribution of each, you'll get all or nothing, wide or narrow.

The essay lists the potential fixes. Hero Quest's fix is to say that all characters get a set number of broad Traits (the Keywords) and then can purchase other Traits. That's the way I've been leaning of late. FATE does the same thing.

Mike